Apple usually leads instead of follows, and one thing I have noticed lately, is that most people have switched to Bluetooth which doesn't require a dongle, and can charge separately.

Bluetooth audio quality is absolute garbage compared to even a 128Kbps MP3 made by a decent encoder. There is severe distortion audible even on cheap speakers. The move from the original SBC codec to aptX appears to perceptually improve things a bit, but it's still crap. The newer Bluetooth audio profiles have provisions for supporting MP3 and AAC, but nobody uses it. aptX is about as good as you'll get. http://www.sereneaudio.com/blog/how-good-is-bluetooth-audio-at-its-best

This article is written by an idiot.

The Bluetooth standard supports 800Kb/s of bandwidth . it can easily handle the 320 kb/s for 5.1 Audio qualification under AAC. It easily handles 128 Kbps of MP3. If your bluetooth headset or speaker doesn't support it, then it is a cheap and crappy bluetooth implementation..

The delay everyone complains about in Bluetooth is due to the far side device. If you bough a cheap device that can't decode encode and decode bluetooth , then you got what you paid for. If you an iphone or ipod video using bluetooth, you will see that the iphone knows the bluetooth lag and will sync the audio. Meanwhile other devices such as PC's with browsers and 3rd party devices don't make the adjustment for the extra delay of the encoded and decoding of the audio.

Which still runs on a mobile OS. So it's still an oversized phone with some nice gadgets.

Apple's mobile environment is the iOS based range of products, including iPad, iPhone and iPod touch. Like iOS, AppleTV also runs a stripped down version of OS X. As I noted above, Apple had developed the technology before deciding which product would be the first to the market. Obviously they made the right choice going first with the iPhone, but it is the iOS environment that drives sales and revenues for Apple AND iOS developers.

The Bluetooth standard supports 800Kb/s of bandwidth . it can easily handle the 320 kb/s for 5.1 Audio qualification under AAC. It easily handles 128 Kbps of MP3. If your bluetooth headset or speaker doesn't support it, then it is a cheap and crappy bluetooth implementation..

The delay everyone complains about in Bluetooth is due to the far side device. If you bough a cheap device that can't decode encode and decode bluetooth , then you got what you paid for. If you an iphone or ipod video using bluetooth, you will see that the iphone knows the bluetooth lag and will sync the audio. Meanwhile other devices such as PC's with browsers and 3rd party devices don't make the adjustment for the extra delay of the encoded and decoding of the audio.

I have a pair of Parrot Zik 2.0's which are not a cheap set of bluetooth headphones and there is still lag.

The Bluetooth standard supports 800Kb/s of bandwidth . it can easily handle the 320 kb/s for 5.1 Audio qualification under AAC. It easily handles 128 Kbps of MP3. If your bluetooth headset or speaker doesn't support it, then it is a cheap and crappy bluetooth implementation..

People need to understand that Android is different with each manufacturer. Samsung loves to install bloatware, while Google gives you a much more clean experience. I recently moved to Motorola / Lenovo and the Moto G5 Plus works great for the low price.

Which still runs on a mobile OS. So it's still an oversized phone with some nice gadgets.

Apple's mobile environment is the iOS based range of products, including iPad, iPhone and iPod touch. Like iOS, AppleTV also runs a stripped down version of OS X. As I noted above, Apple had developed the technology before deciding which product would be the first to the market. Obviously they made the right choice going first with the iPhone, but it is the iOS environment that drives sales and revenues for Apple AND iOS developers.

The iPad was the right thing to do when it was launched. At the time iPhones had a small screen and poor battery life so the iPad was a great solution for casual couch browsing, movie watching etc.

But when you can have a full-blown computer OS on the same size package while at the same time phones have larger and larger screens the iPad starts making less sense.

The Bluetooth standard supports 800Kb/s of bandwidth . it can easily handle the 320 kb/s for 5.1 Audio qualification under AAC. It easily handles 128 Kbps of MP3. If your bluetooth headset or speaker doesn't support it, then it is a cheap and crappy bluetooth implementation..

The delay everyone complains about in Bluetooth is due to the far side device. If you bough a cheap device that can't decode encode and decode bluetooth , then you got what you paid for. If you an iphone or ipod video using bluetooth, you will see that the iphone knows the bluetooth lag and will sync the audio. Meanwhile other devices such as PC's with browsers and 3rd party devices don't make the adjustment for the extra delay of the encoded and decoding of the audio.

I have a pair of Parrot Zik 2.0's which are not a cheap set of bluetooth headphones and there is still lag.

I have seen companies set up million dollar softswitches, and they have incredible lag because they set their Jitter buffers all the way out trying to preserve packets, even when there are no dicards due to the high QOS settings. The main issue on bluetooth's is that many of the headphone companies farm out the bluetooth to data heads that have no clue how real time audio should be treated in a network.

treetreeseven wrote:

Supports bandwidth amount X != implements codec A

Not sure the point you are making, but you are correct bandwidth is not the same as a codec, however there is enough bandwidth for any audio coder on Bluetooth with high fidelity that you can get on a digitally encoded signal.

But when you can have a full-blown computer OS on the same size package while at the same time phones have larger and larger screens the iPad starts making less sense.

That is true according to the market stats and the market will always be the ultimate arbiter. What's interesting now is to visit the Apple Store's Mac and iPad sections and see the incredible amount of overlap between the myriad devices in each line (screen size, speed, storage, capability etc). A 27 inch Mac is cheaper than a 13 inch Macbook as an example. If you like Apple there's something for everyone and the same goes for Android-based products. Choose your budget and then decide what OS you want, what device you prefer and what you can ultimately live with. I think we'll always have to credit Apple for laying the foundation of the choices we now have and the ecosystems that we demand to live in which unify entire families in a world of content and communication. It all happened in just ten years.

I always laugh when these big events happen though. You see the Wired, CNET and other press reviews come out and say the same exact thing..it's either shite product that's overpriced and appeals only to sheep or it's the second coming of Steve Jobs. For once I'd like to see a headline that simply says "here's the new iPhone, you don't have to buy it if you don't want to".

\I thought it is the other way around, OS X is becoming a scaled up version of iOS. I could be wrong.

What are folks thoughts about iPhone X?

I hope Apple will announce SE's successor, just a faster processor would be for me. These humungous half-a-pound phones are annoying.

OS X was released in 2001 and the iPhone was announced in 2007 IIRC. iOS from the start didn't need all the functions of OS X (like the CD Drive, US B ports, etc) from the start so OS X was stripped down to meet the needs of a smart phone, while maintaining very close ties to

I think iPhone X will work out well. There needs to be reductions in the costs of the display but most other features (like FaceID) can migrate to the other main versions.

The SE is going to be in the game for the long Haus and will get periodic upgrades in performance. The greatest asset is the smaller size for people who didn't want a large phone. She stayed with a flip phone until the SE came out and that is the form factor she will agree with in the future. The greatest liability is the limited space for a battery. There also might not be sufficient room for the newest 6 core processor.

JJJ wrote:

The iPad was the right thing to do when it was launched. At the time iPhones had a small screen and poor battery life so the iPad was a great solution for casual couch browsing, movie watching etc.

But when you can have a full-blown computer OS on the same size package while at the same time phones have larger and larger screens the iPad starts making less sense.

The iPads are still good options for many. The smallest iPad is a good starter option for a lot of people who hate the ides of a super large phone. Also good for kids where early schooling can be a benefit.

Larger size iPads also a very good market. Going to Stanford Med School? Your textbooks are going to be on the iPad. Walk around a hospital and you see a lot of iPads with OsriX for reviewing x-rays, Its, MRIs, etc along with the Radiologists report, ll linked to the Patient's medical records. The iPad is also a great support platform for Apple's ResearchKit, which has exploded in the Medical field. Look at Aviation, with the iPad being the first tablet approved by the FAA for a replacement of the 20 - 40 pound flight bags. Name a major field and tablets are making major inroads, with Apple being a leader, especially when integration with iPhones and Macs are desired.

At work we use a ticketing tool that defaults to English even though we mostly write in French (users being French speakers). The worst part is that you can uncorrect what it does, and it will "correct" it again and again and again, it's maddening !

I feel your pain!

All our systems at work are automatically set to US spelling and even if you reset all the defaults it still doesn't seem to understand. Everything ends up full of Z's instead of S's. What also makes things infuriating is when you work in an industry that has many technical words that don't appear in the dictionary and so the computer tries to have a guess at something it does have and gets it totally wrong.

OS X was released in 2001 and the iPhone was announced in 2007 IIRC. iOS from the start didn't need all the functions of OS X (like the CD Drive, US B ports, etc) from the start so OS X was stripped down to meet the needs of a smart phone, while maintaining very close ties to

I think iPhone X will work out well. There needs to be reductions in the costs of the display but most other features (like FaceID) can migrate to the other main versions.

The SE is going to be in the game for the long Haus and will get periodic upgrades in performance. The greatest asset is the smaller size for people who didn't want a large phone. She stayed with a flip phone until the SE came out and that is the form factor she will agree with in the future. The greatest liability is the limited space for a battery. There also might not be sufficient room for the newest 6 core processor.

Sure OS X predates iOS, but macOS took on more iOS features even though internals may be still OS X based.

Apple will never reduce the price to customers. The add-on parts in iPhone 10 are worth less than $60 but it costs $200 more than iPhone 8.

Well, there are two ways to deal with low power requirements of a smaller phone. Turn off some cores in A11 Bionic or run at lower power rating to save energy. Another option is to have another label A10x for A11 Bionic rejects. This is very common practice as all silicon is not of same quality.

Sure OS X predates iOS, but macOS took on more iOS features even though internals may be still OS X based.

Apple will never reduce the price to customers. The add-on parts in iPhone 10 are worth less than $60 but it costs $200 more than iPhone 8.

Well, there are two ways to deal with low power requirements of a smaller phone. Turn off some cores in A11 Bionic or run at lower power rating to save energy. Another option is to have another label A10x for A11 Bionic rejects. This is very common practice as all silicon is not of same quality.

macOS is simply the new name for OS X (and various enhancements, like other previous versions). Apple is investing heavily on iOS and hardware in the mobile markets, but there is still development of MacBooks and Macs. It should be no surprise that various Apple OSs share features and code. That has long been one of the best features of Apple products.

Apple has reduced prices in the past. OS X started of at $129 and is not free. Generally Apple delivers more capacity at the previous year's version, such as a more powerful processor or more memory or disk capacity. My 2009 MacBoo0k Pro has recently been replaced with a current version. About the same price but a far more powerful laptop.

Also it helps to take a look at the new macOS due out next week to see the enhancements/improvements that are included:

Some very interesting ideas and IIRC this upgrade is going to be free - just like the new iOS.

On multicor iPhone processors the smaller cores carry the normal processing at a lower powerful level while the larger cores are kicked in when more power is needed. That is one important approach to minimizing power usage - just one in the iPhone.

Not sure the point you are making, but you are correct bandwidth is not the same as a codec, however there is enough bandwidth for any audio coder on Bluetooth with high fidelity that you can get on a digitally encoded signal.

My point is that manufacturers are not implementing better codecs, they're still using crappy ones.

Not sure the point you are making, but you are correct bandwidth is not the same as a codec, however there is enough bandwidth for any audio coder on Bluetooth with high fidelity that you can get on a digitally encoded signal.

My point is that manufacturers are not implementing better codecs, they're still using crappy ones.

But that isn't a problem with bluetooth, that is a problem with manufacturers that try to sell cheap shit at a markup. It's one of the biggest problems I ever had with many of the headphone manufacturers. It's also a gripe I have with many voip vendors too, but that's for another day.

Not sure the point you are making, but you are correct bandwidth is not the same as a codec, however there is enough bandwidth for any audio coder on Bluetooth with high fidelity that you can get on a digitally encoded signal.

My point is that manufacturers are not implementing better codecs, they're still using crappy ones.

But that isn't a problem with bluetooth, that is a problem with manufacturers that try to sell cheap shit at a markup. It's one of the biggest problems I ever had with many of the headphone manufacturers. It's also a gripe I have with many voip vendors too, but that's for another day.

Right, my point is that the products available now produce sub-par sound because of the market reality that everyone's settled on lowest common denominator codecs. They *could* use AAC but unless my knowledge is dated, they pretty much don't. I suspect the fact that one manufacturer tends to provide the bluetooth stack on the master device and another produces the stack on the peripheral device has something to do with it. There are royalties for aptX and thus it does not currently exist for Linux, for example. I don't know what the situation would be with AAC or even MP3 at this point. But you can see why it would be a chicken and egg problem where nobody wants to lay the first egg because it costs them 12 cents per installed unit (or whatever) in royalties.

My point is that manufacturers are not implementing better codecs, they're still using crappy ones.

But that isn't a problem with bluetooth, that is a problem with manufacturers that try to sell cheap shit at a markup. It's one of the biggest problems I ever had with many of the headphone manufacturers. It's also a gripe I have with many voip vendors too, but that's for another day.

Right, my point is that the products available now produce sub-par sound because of the market reality that everyone's settled on lowest common denominator codecs. They *could* use AAC but unless my knowledge is dated, they pretty much don't. I suspect the fact that one manufacturer tends to provide the bluetooth stack on the master device and another produces the stack on the peripheral device has something to do with it. There are royalties for aptX and thus it does not currently exist for Linux, for example. I don't know what the situation would be with AAC or even MP3 at this point. But you can see why it would be a chicken and egg problem where nobody wants to lay the first egg because it costs them 12 cents per installed unit (or whatever) in royalties.

But the chicken and egg usually winds up being the end user. Most devices will expand for the best available coder. But coders aren't the whole story. The delay everyone is talking about is not due to coders, but rather network quality/jitter buffer settings. Most don't put this in the hands of the user, but at the end of the day, real time audio over bluetooth is not as important as keeping the stream in order, so packets are buffered to make sure the error rate stays low, regardless of it needs to or not.

Unless you are into 3D gaming and taking pictures of every object you come across, graphics performance is irrelevant to most business users.

Sandboxed apps vs open applications. Desktop O/S has no control on developers, where are mobile O/S providers have total control on how an app is written. Benchmarks should be taken with a boatload of salt, even if benchmark creator claims they are comparable. If they don't say their benchmark app will be dumped.